.CSTT 


V 

EPISCOPAL 


ORDINATION  AND  BAPTISM 


DOUBTFUL   VALIDITY  AT    THE    PRESENT   DAY; 


AS    SHOWN    BY 


\ 

BISHOP     BROWNELL, 


LATE  CHARGE  TO  THE  CLERGY 


DIOCESE    OF    CONNECTICUT. 


NEW    HAVEN: 

PRINTED    11  V    B.    L.    HAMLEN. 

1843. 


BISHOP    BROWNELL'S    CHARGE. 


The  charge  of  Bishop  Brownell  to  the  clergy  of  the  di- 
ocese of  Connecticut,  delivered  at  their  annual  convention 
holden  at  Hartford  in  June  last,  bears  with  very  great  se- 
verity on  those  whom  he  styles  "Dissenters  ;"  under  which 
epithet  he  includes  all  who  are  not  of  the  Episcopal  or  Pa- 
pal denomination.  The  grand,  elementary  position,  by 
wThich  he  designates  the  distinguishing  feature  of.  the  true 
church  is,  that  its  clergy  have  a  regular  succession  from 
those  who  were  invested  with  ministerial  power  in  the 
apostolic  age,  of  whom  the  bishops  of  this  day  occupy  the 
same  place  in  the  church  as  the  apostles  did  in  that.  His 
principal  and  leading  object  is,  to  show  the  illegitimacy  of 
any  other  priesthood  than  that  which  then  existed,  and  the 
utter  inability  of  any  who  are  not  of  the  regular  line  of 
succession,  to  constitute  a  minister  of  either  of  the  three 
orders.  Christ  constituted  the  apostles  with  power  to  or- 
dain others,  and  no  ordination  is  of  any  validity  but  that 
which  is  derived  from  their  imposition  of  hands,  through 
the  succession  of  ages  down  to  the  present  day. 

The  Bishop  admits,  that  there  is  no  command  to  enforce 
their  permanency ;  but  contends  that  no  such  command  is 
necessary.  That  I  may  not  do  him  injustice,  I  will  quote 
the  very  language  he  adopts  on  pages  12  and  13  of  the 
printed  copy : 

"If,"  says  he,  "the  Christian  religion  itself  was  design- 
ed to  be  permanent,  as  no  man  can  doubt,  then  all  its  re- 
quirements must  be  of  perpetual  obligation,  and  all  the 
fundamental  institutions,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
which  it  was  designed  to  be  continued,  must  have  the 
same  unchanging  perpetuity.  There  needs  no  express 
command,  as  some  have  maintained,  to  enforce  their  per- 


manency.  Unless  there  be  a  clear  intimation  that  any 
apostolic  institution  was  designed  to  be  of  a  temporary 
nature,  it  must  be  assumed  to  be  a  standing  regulation  of 
the  church.  For  if  it  be  contended  that  any  such  stand- 
ing regulation  may  be  abandoned  because  it  is  not  enjoin- 
ed by  express  command,  it  may,  with  equal  reason,  be 
concluded  that  any  point  of  Christian  doctrine  may  be  re- 
nounced, where  there  is  no  special  command  for  its  observ- 
ance ;  a  course  of  reasoning  which  would  lead  to  utter 
confusion  in  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  church." 

I  have  no  doubt  of  the  entire  sincerity  with  which  this 
proposition  is  advanced  by  Bishop  Brownell,  and  for  the 
present  purpose  I  shall  assume  it  to  be  strictly  true.  All 
ordinations,  all  administrations  of  the  ordinances  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles performed  either  by  themselves,  or  by  those  ministers 
who  derived  their  authority  from  them.  The  ordinance  of 
baptism  was  of  peculiar  importance  and  solemnity.  The 
Bishop  denominates  it  "  one  of  the  most  solemn  institu- 
tions of  the  Savior."  He  says,  (page  21,)  that  "the  true 
economy  of  the  Christian  religion  regards  men  as  by  nature 
the  'children  of  wrath.'  It  takes  them  from  this  state, 
which  is  called  in  Scripture  '  the  kingdom  of  Satan,'  and 
transfers  them  by  baptism,  into  the  family,  household  and 
kingdom  of  the  Savior,  where  they  are  called  'children  of 
God,'  '  members  of  Christ,'  and  '  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.' " — "  After  baptism  the  person  is  regarded  as  in  a 
state  of  covenant  relationship  with  God,  and  becomes  enti- 
tled to  the  aids  of  his  Holy  Spirit.  This  change  of  state, 
effected  in  baptism,  is  called  in  Scripture  and  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  baptismal  office,  regeneration." 

If,  then,  baptism  was  an  institution  of  the  Savior,  and  if, 
as  must  be  admitted,  it  was  never  administered  in  that  day 
but  by  the  apostles  and  ministers  duly  ordained ;  if,  as  the 
Bishop,  insists,  it  was  an  essential  prerequisite  of  admission 
to  the  church,  or  as  he  styles  it,   "  covenant  relationship 


with  God ;"  if  it  was  by  this  ordinance  that  men  "  were 
taken  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan,"  or  the  "  state  of  wrath," 
in  which,  as  the  Bishop  truly  says,  all  men  are  by  nature ; 
it  is,  as  he  strenuously  insists,  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all  religious  institutions.  Connect  with  this  the 
proposition,  that  wThat  was  done  by  the  Savior  and  his 
apostles,  although  unaccompanied  by  any  express  com- 
mand, is  as  obligatory  forever  as  if  commanded  expressly  ; 
and  it  follows  that  no  baptism  is  of  any  validity,  unless  ad- 
ministered, as  in  that  day,  by  a  duly  ordained  minister,  de- 
riving his  power  in  an  unbroken  line  from  the  apostles. 
Administration  of  it  by  any  other  hand,  would,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Bishop,  be  virtually  a  violation  of  an 
express  command  of  Christ.  However  true  it  may  be,  as 
stated  in  the  26th  article  of  the  church,  recited  by  the 
Bishop  in  a  note  on  page  23,  "  that  the  sacraments  be  ef- 
fectual because  of  Christ's  institution  and  'promise,  although 
they  be  administered  by  evil  men ;"  yet  if  they  are  ad- 
ministered by  laymen,  who  have  no  power,  but  on  the 
contrary  are  forbidden  to  do  it,  the  administration  is  cer- 
tainly void.  Although  my  agent  may  be  a  very  dishonest 
man,  yet  his  act,  if  done  in  conformity  with  my  order,  is 
valid  and  obligatory.  But  if  a  man,  however  pure  his 
morals,  who  is  not  my  agent,  acts  against  my  express 
orders,  whatever  he  does  in  my  name  is  utterly  void. 
The  article,  therefore,  does  not  mean,  that  the  "  evil  men" 
whose  acts  are  valid,  are  not  in  clerical  orders,  nor  that 
they  are  expressly  forbidden  to  do  the  act,  but  only  that 
they  are  not  pious  men.  And  this,  as  Episcopalians  hold, 
is  equally  true  of  every  other  exercise  of  power  by  one  who 
is  duly  authorized.  Therefore  the  ordinations,  by  which 
the  clerical  succession  is  transmitted  through  the  most  cor- 
rupt periods  of  the  Papal  church,  are  held  valid,  because 
those  by  whom  they  were  performed,  although  "  evil  men," 
were  men  in  orders.  It  would  be  hard,  indeed,  to  require 
the  person  baptized,  or  his  sponsors,  to  sec  the  heart  of  the 


priest.  It  is  enough  that  he  is  a  lawfully  constituted  min- 
ister. That  and  that  only  is  indispensable  to  the  validity 
of  his  official  administrations.  But  as,  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  none  administered  baptism  but  regular  ministers, 
it  is  equal  to  a  command  that  no  others  shall  do  it  now. 
There  is  no  instance  in  which  any  person  was  ever  admit- 
ted to  holy  orders  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  church, 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles ;  and  baptism,  as  the  Bishop 
insists,  is  the  very  means  by  which  men  are  taken  from 
the  world  and  become  "members  of  the  household  of 
faith." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Bishop  may  be  briefly  stated  in  the 
following  propositions. 

I.  Whatever  was  instituted  by  Christ  and  the  apostles 
was  commanded  to  be  perpetual. 

II.  There  can  be  no  lawful  minister  who  is  not  ordained 
by  their  successors,  and  they  again  by  others,  and  so  on, 
up  to  the  apostles. 

III.  As  no  others,  than  such  lawful  ministers,  baptized 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  it  is  virtually  commanded  that 
no  others  shall  have  the  power  to  do  it. 

IV.  As  membership  with  the  church  cannot  exist  until 
baptism,  "by  which  alone  men  are  transferred  from  the 
kingdom  of  Satan ;"  and  as  no  minister  was  ever  ordained 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  who  was  not  baptized,  it  is 
contrary  to  Christ's  command  that  any  but  members  of  the 
church  duly  baptized,  should  be  ordained. 

V.  The  ordination  of  any  one  who  has  not  been  admit- 
ted into  the  church  by  baptism,  is  opposed  to  apostolic 
usage,  and  therefore  forbidden,  and  is  utterly  void. 

I  am  not  about  to  controvert,  as  I  said  before,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Bishop,  or  the  consequences  which  flow  from 
them.  If  they  are  correct,  however,  there  is  no  minister 
in  the  Episcopal  church  who  has  not  been  baptized  by  a 
minister  of  that  church,  who  has  any  ministerial  power,  by 
whomsoever  he  may  have  been  ordained.     No  others  can 


belong  to  the  church,  or  be  within  "  the  covenant  mercies 
of  God  ;"  much  less  can  they  be  its  ministers.  The  ordi- 
nation of  one  who  cannot  be  ordained  leaves  him  where  it 
found  him.  As  no  unbaptized  person  was  ever  made  an 
apostle  or  minister  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  as  what 
was  done  then  is  this  day  commanded  and  binding  forever, 
it  is  as  certain  as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  that  there 
can  be  no  lawful  bishop,  priest  or  deacon  who  has  not  been 
baptized ;  and  as  baptism  by  a  layman,  that  is,  by  a  Pres- 
byterian or  Congregational  minister,  or  any  other  "  dis- 
senter" is  no  baptism  at  all ;  those  who  now  officiate  in 
the  Episcopal  church  in  holy  orders,  who  have  received 
no  other  baptism,  are  not  in  the  ministry.  They  cannot, 
according  to  the  Bishop's  charge,  ordain,  baptize,  admin- 
ister the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  exercise  gov- 
ernment in  the  church.  All  baptisms  and  ordinations  from 
their  hands  are  void.  All  apostolical  successions  which 
are  claimed,  but  derived  from  an  unbaptized  minister,  at 
ever  so  remote  a  period,  are  void  through  every  successive 
generation,  and  will  continue  so  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
" Ex  nihillo  nihil  fit" 

There  has  heretofore  been  much  difficulty  in  tracing  the 
succession  of  each  minister  back  to  the  apostles ;  but  the 
principles  of  this  charge  have  augmented  the  difficulty  an 
hundred  fold.  Christ  and  his  apostles  commanded,  by 
the  usage  of  that  day,  that  baptized  persons  only  should 
be  ordained,  and  that  none  should  be  baptized  at  all,  un- 
less the  ordinance  was  administered  by  a  priest  in  orders. 

Young  Mr.  Hewitt  adopted  sound  reasoning  when  he 
applied  to  Dr.  Croswell  to  rebaptize  him.  He  doubtless 
supposed  the  Doctor  himself  had  been  baptized,  or,  upon 
his  own  principles,  he  would  not  have  applied  to  him.  If 
it  should  turn  out,  on  investigation,  as  has  long  been  com- 
monly understood,  that  Bishops  Seabury  and  Jarvis,  the 
only  predecessors  of  Bishop  Brownell,  were  never  bap- 
tized except  by  "  dissenters,"  it  would  make  great  havoc 


in  that  diocese.  Thousands  who  thought  themselves  re- 
generated by  the  baptism  administered  by  those  venerable 
men,  or  by  the  clergymen  whom  they  ordained,  have  gone 
to  the  grave  with  a  joyful  but  groundless  hope.  They 
must  have  died  "  children  of  wrath"  and  in  "  the  kingdom 
of  Satan,"  when  they  honestly  supposed  they  had  been 
"  transferred  by  baptism  into  the  family,  household  and 
kingdom  of  the  Savior."  Many  now  living  who  left  the 
"dissenters,"  and,  to  use  the  language  of  the  Bishop, 
(page  30,)  "  sought  for  repose  in  our  Scriptural  standards 
of  faith  and  primitive  forms  of  worship,"  have  been  long 
in  a  state  of  mental  quietude,  from  a  similar  mistaken  con- 
fidence. A  large  proportion  of  the  ministers  of  that  de- 
nomination, throughout  the  United  States,  were  once  dis- 
senters, and  have  never  been  rebaptized.  Those  who 
have  failed  of  "  regeneration"  by  the  only  means  which  a 
Savior  has  appointed,  will  with  difficulty  find  a  lawful  cler- 
gyman to  rescue  them  from  their  perilous  condition. 

The  Bishop  certainly  deserves  the  gratitude  of  the 
church,  for  having  thus  frankly  exhibited  this  appalling 
condition  of  both  priests  and  people.  All  who  believe, 
with  him,  that  there  can  be  no  regeneration  or  salvation 
without  baptism — no  baptism  but  by  a  priest  who  derives 
his  power  by  an  unbroken  succession  from  the  apostles ; 
and  that  even  that  is  vain  unless  the  priest  himself  has 
been  duly  baptized  as  well  as  ordained,  by  one  possess- 
ing like  power  and  qualifications ;  if  they  consider  how 
large  a  proportion  of  those  in  Episcopal  orders  have  had 
none  but  lay  baptism,  and  how  difficult  it  has  consequently 
become  to  ascertain  who  has  the  power  of  commanding 
"  the  aids  of  God's  Holy  Spirit"  and  who  has  not,  they 
will  begin,  with  breathless  earnestness,  to  inquire  into  their 
own  condition,  and  seek,  through  this  dark  field  of  investi- 
gation, the  hands  which  alone  can  save  them  from  eternal 
ruin. 


Princeton  Theology 


1   1012  01082  0258 


DATE  DUE 

jj ^ 

Mflflpi^fJ^i 

H 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  USA. 

